ArticleCureus2025
Effect of a Quality Improvement Initiative on Procedural Abortion Pain and Anxiety Using a Standardized Patient-Focused Sedation Options Counseling Guide.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of a quality improvement initiative on procedural abortion pain and anxiety using a standardized patient-focused sedation options counseling guide. STUDY
designWe developed and implemented a patient-focused sedation options counseling guide for use across three reproductive health centers in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. To evaluate the effect of the initiative, pain (0-10) and anxiety (0-5) scores were abstracted from the electronic health record for all patients who obtained procedural abortions with moderate sedation through 18 weeks of gestation (N = 362). A six-month pre/post implementation analysis was conducted examining pain and anxiety scores. To analyze differences in pain and anxiety while controlling for covariates, a hurdle model was fit with maximum intraoperative pain scores, and Poisson regression was fit with maximum full procedure anxiety scores as the outcomes of interest.
resultsThe proportion of patients reporting no pain increased from 13.0% to 22.7% with the use of the counseling guide (p = 0.03). The median maximum intraoperative pain score decreased from 5 to 4. In the unadjusted model, use of the counseling guide decreased the odds of patients reporting any intraoperative pain by 49% (odds ratio (OR): 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.91). The odds ratio was similar after adjustment for covariates (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.26-1.04). Use of the counseling guide showed no significant effect on anxiety.
conclusionWe saw a reduction in procedural abortion pain after the implementation of the counseling guide. This adjunct to established pain management options is a simple improvement on current practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.